Fresh, intelligent, and surprising discussions for those who value modesty in its various forms.

April 30, 2008

I had been expecting Randall Patterson’s New York Times piece “Students of Virginity.” (Patterson had also extensively interviewed myself and some others associated with the Anscombe Society here at Princeton for his piece.)

What I had not expected was to find a gossip column instead of a fair journalism piece.
While some people (perhaps even the author himself) may see this piece as breaking the story on the ironic sexual struggles of abstinence leaders at Harvard, most readers will surely discern the liberty the author took in relaying the details he gathered.

Take, for example, Patterson’s portrayal of Leo Keliher, one of the co-presidents of Harvard’s abstinence group, True Love Revolution (TLR). It is hard to believe that a Harvard student who has publicly committed himself to advocating abstinence (and who already has media experience) would divulge his temptations and desires to a New York Times reporter. When asked about the comments published about him, Keliher clarified that Patterson took many of his observations of society at large, and of men specifically, and inaccurately applied those general observations to Keliher’s own personal life.

This is not to say that Keliher, and other men (and women) committed to chastity, are immune from temptation and desire. Patterson certainly makes a point of conveying that. But in his excitement over the fact that even chaste people have libidos, Patterson fails to recognize the real news he has uncovered – namely, the constructive and healthy ways chaste people approach their sexual desires.

TLR’s other co-president, Janie Fredell, speaks of the allure of virginity as rooted not so much in “innocence and purity” as in “the notion of strength”. Certainly by this she means strength of will. Fredell’s conception of feminism reaffirms this. While “conventional feminists” teach “that control of your body means the freedom to have sex without consequences – sex like a man,” the “unconventional” feminism with which Fredell identifies encourages women to have the strength and will to control her body, but to control it “by choosing not to have sex”, at least not until marriage.

What the article leaves unsaid here is that the “unconventional feminism” Fredell describes is fundamentally better for women. Even women who have chosen the hook-up lifestyle have admitted that there is nothing liberating for women in this way of life. There is no such thing as “sex without consequences” for women, whose bodies are made to bond with the men they have sex with. What Fredell is ultimately suggesting is a better way for women to respond to their sexual desires. Rather than allowing their desires and impulses to control them (whether they are in a casual hook-up with an acquaintance or in a serious premarital relationship), women should be encouraged and supported in choosing to abstain from sex, especially out of consideration for their emotional, physical, and psychological health and well-being.

As Fredell says, “It takes a strong woman to be abstinent.” I, for one, think the world could do with more strong women like this.
And we can certainly do with more strong, respectful men as well. Keliher himself is one person who has learned to “love women out of strength and not out of need.” Just as self-control reflects a strong woman, Keliher states, “To have that kind of self-control [being able to deny yourself for the sake of the woman] is really what it means to be a man.”
Unfortunately, these more constructive and intelligent statements are overshadowed by Patterson’s excitement over the more “juicy” details that were communicated to him.

I cannot help but doubt the picture Patterson paints of his intimate conversations with these students, especially with Leo Keliher. However, even if Keliher did actually say everything Patterson reveals, why should it be so surprising that a young man, even one convinced of the benefits of chastity, would experience sexual desires, physical temptations, and lustful thoughts? We live in a hyper-sexualized environment – just consider the majority of advertisements and entertainment out there. Undoubtedly, college campuses are even more sexualized. With so much sex around us, we’d be hard-pressed to find a young adult completely unaffected by it.

Too bad for Patterson, he has missed the real story after months of research. The real story behind “Students of Virginity” is not that these virgins are cognizant of sexual desire, but rather that they have learned how to direct that desire toward a better goal. Despite common stereotypes, we are not talking about students who are meek, repressed, and scared of sex and sin. Rather, these are young men and women who value sex so much they find the strength and the will to save it for the man or woman they are willing to share the rest of their lives with – their spouse.

February 26, 2008

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute (CBLPI) is challenging young college women to get as many of their college friends as they can to sign up to receive a free copy of the “Luce Ladies” 2008 calendar. “The Lady with the most names wins an authentic, cedar-lined hope chest filled with $1000 worth of fantabulous stuff for her future marriage – and a $500 contribution toward the big day.”

What a brilliant idea!

During a month when The Vagina Monologues insult women (and men) across the nation, and New York City health officials tell city-dwellers to “get some” through a mass condom distribution campaign, CBLPI is encouraging women to set their sights (and hearts) on marriage instead of sex.

Common misconceptions about medieval marriage law and customs associate hope chests and dowries with women being devalued as property. In reality, these traditions carried with them no such degradation. Hope chests were simply used to store the hand-made goods and other items that a woman wished to bring to her future marriage. Essentially, a hope chest was part of her preparation for those first couple years of marriage, and, as the name suggests, symbolized her hope in marriage.

I actually think it a shame this tradition has died out. Many of the happiest couples I know, be they newlywed or not, admit that much of their marital happiness is due to being dedicated to their spouse, even before knowing who their spouse would be. In other words, before marriage (and sometimes even before meeting their future spouse) they would pray for him/her, and certainly they would save themselves sexually for him/her.

Their love for and fidelity to each other did not start upon saying “I do,” but was rather developed and strengthened long before then. A hope chest could very easily assist such spousal commitment by orienting a young woman’s thoughts and heart in that direction. The more she thinks about her future husband and prepares for life with him, the less likely she will be to get distracted from this goal through casual relationships. Her hope chest would serve as a reminder of her future husband and their life together, thereby strengthening her love and commitment to him.

Whether you can participate in this competition or not, I propose we follow CBLPI’s lead. Let’s help young women hope for happy and stable marriages in the future by preparing well for marriage today.

January 14, 2008

That’s the question Amy and Leon Kass posed in their
commentary on Erasmus’ colloquy on courtship in their edited book Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar (a great
resource for readings on courting, love, and marriage).

The Anscombe Society at Princeton used
this reading recently as part of a discussion series on dating. The question is a simple one without a very
simple answer.

Most young adults committed to abstinence understand
the big picture (it’s healthiest and most fulfilling to wait until marriage to
have sex), but are lost when it comes to the details. “How far is too far?” they ask. Books have been written answering this
question. But perhaps a better way of
answering it is to rephrase the question: “What’s in a kiss?”

Now, this
isn’t the type of question a young woman committed to chastity can answer by
going out and conducting field research! So, what I offer below is an honest look at human biology and emotions,
as well as a summary of the advice given by abstinence advocates (see, for
example here).

From my perspective, a kiss communicates a message: either a message of
affection for the other, or gratification for oneself. What do I mean by “gratification for
oneself”? Often, when kissing
occurs outside of a committed relationship between two people who mutually care
about each other, people kiss simply for the fun of it. They kiss because of the personal enjoyment
they get out of it (self-gratification), rather than to convey any sense of
real and lasting affection. This is not
to say that enjoying a kiss is bad. Indeed, a man and woman in a relationship who kiss out of genuine and
mutual affection for one another inevitably enjoy it and appropriately so. The problem is when the primary purpose of
the kiss is for personal pleasure or satisfaction. Because of the more self-centered nature of
such kissing, those who engage in it are not being fair to themselves, their
partners, or their future spouses. Any
type of behavior that generates a habitual attitude of detachment and
self-centeredness is never healthy for a relationship.

Rather, kissing is meant to be a sign of affection
that naturally and honestly manifests the nature of the relationship. For example, truly affectionate kisses
between an unmarried man and woman in a committed relationship would be loving,
selfless, and simple. These kisses can also exist between a married
man and woman, but the intimate nature of their relationship would also make it
appropriate for their kisses to express a greater intimacy. (Similarly,
sex is only appropriate within marriage because it communicates a level of
intimacy and union that is only honestly present within a marital
relationship.)

Consider passionate kissing.Passionate kissing by
definition arouses the man and
woman; otherwise, it would not be
“passionate.” Now, what is arousal but
the body's preparation for sex? Two people
committed to chastity should avoid making kissing an "activity,"
because passionate kissing easily escalates and arouses. The couple then finds themselves in a
confusing and difficult position of saying no to sex when their bodies are
physically preparing for it.

Now,
some of you may be thinking: “Give me a break! You mean abstinent people should avoid making out too? Isn’t waiting to have sex enough to ask?” That’s exactly what I mean. Ask yourself
this: If you value sexual intimacy so
much you want to save sex for marriage, doesn’t it only make sense to value
sexual intimacy in this way too? If
passionate kissing initiates that intimacy, then surely it is only good and
fitting to save passionate kissing for when you can follow through on the
sexual feelings and intimacy it arouses – namely, to save it for marriage.

Speaking
more practically, why would you want to put yourself through the torture of
saying “no,” when your body is saying, “let’s go!”? Better to avoid the situation altogether by
keeping kisses simple: affectionate but not passionate. Nobody is saying this is easy. But if sex and sexual intimacy are important
to you, don’t you want to protect yourself and that special someone from a
difficult and tempting situation, rather than bring each other to the edge of a
cliff only to hope you don't both fall over? I know I do. Ironically, it’s
actually the more loving thing to do.

Now maybe this all still sounds incredibly radical
to some of you. But I think “what’s in a kiss” is a very powerful thing.

November 26, 2007

As you know, Wendy and I joined Laura Sessions Stepp, Dr.
Miriam Grossman, and Dawn Eden recently for a panel discussion on the harms of the
hookup culture and some possible solutions. The event, hosted by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was a big
success. Personally, I learned a lot
from the other women present, and hopefully I contributed some valuable
thoughts as well! The solution I
proposed was for students to organize themselves on campus to provide a voice
supporting modesty and chastity. Here
are my “modest proposals”:

Organize: If you do not already have a student group in
place at your college to support students committed to modesty and chastity, and
to balance campus discussion on these matters through academic research and
arguments, start one! Be sure to seek
out faculty members to support and advise you on your campus initiatives.

Inform: Help your classmates, professors, administrators,
and campus community understand how modesty and chastity contribute to the
flourishing of individuals, marriages, children, and society. Host scholars and professionals to give
campus-wide talks on these matters from their areas of expertise.

Discuss: Get your
classmates thinking. Start a
reading/discussion group to address such questions as: “What is dating and what
is it for?” “With the average marrying age now in the late twenties, is
marriage even relevant to the lives of today’s college students?” “Can modesty
actually empower women (and men)?” “What does chastity and courtship mean
anyways?”

Collaborate: Work
with other student groups and services on campus to foster candid and civil
conversation on matters of marriage, family, sex, and sexuality.

Respond: Publish opinion editorials and letters to the
editor in your campus papers and journals about what’s happening on your
campus.

Enhance: Are there
programs and services on campus (such as the freshman orientation program or
sexual health services) that either ignore the benefits of chastity and modesty
or do not do it justice? Do some of
these programs and services essentially alienate students with a more
traditional sexual morality? If so, enhance
the programs and services offered on campus by approaching the appropriate university
administrators and staff with your concerns and by helping them to make
improvements.

Enrich: Enrich the
social life on campus by providing alternatives to the hookup scene where true
friendships and relationships can form and flourish. Organize study breaks, film forums, outings,
parties, etc.

July 05, 2007

So often we consider the effect
of modesty or immodesty on the opposite sex, but what about modesty even with
our own sex….in a clothing store fitting room, for example? Such a place is filled with modesty questions: “Is this too small or too big?” “Is this
shirt too low or too see-through?” “Is this shirt/skirt too short or too tight?”

What strikes me is when women will ask these
questions to their friends, less concerned about modesty as they are about justifying
being immodest. I think many of you know
the type of conversation to which I am referring. Just the other day I was in a fitting room
where one woman asked if her shirt showed too much cleavage. Her friend replied something along the lines
of, “well, you’re working with mostly women, aren’t you?” At which point it was clarified that there
were a few men in the office. “Well, then,
you’ll be sure to get the men’s attention!” was the response. The women proceeded to giggle, and later I
witnessed the purchase of the item. Even
if a given area is single sex, however, this does not mean it is ok to dress
immodestly. In fact, dressing
fashionably and modestly around other women can only help encourage others to
dress responsibly.

We can also encourage modesty by replying honestly to those
fitting room questions. We women
certainly have the responsibility of telling friends whether something is
inappropriate to wear or simply does not compliment her figure. In fact, we need to take more seriously this
responsibility to our friends, especially when shopping with them. Very often, if you need to ask the question
whether or not an outfit is modest, you already know the answer is very likely,
“No.” Other times, it is truly a
toss-up. And still other times, there
might be an outfit that is inappropriate for one occasion, but suitable for
another.

As a closing note, I have a question. It is easier to help a friend with modesty
when we are shopping with her or when she asks us our opinion. But how can we help friends when they are not
seeking our advice? What is a modest
(and charitable) way of helping a friend to realize her clothing is too tight,
too revealing, too short, etc?

June 17, 2007

Tuesday, June 5th marked the climactic occasion
of the end of my undergraduate career. Since then, I have been reflecting on the past four years
and reliving the commencement activities, which, at Princeton,
have the exhausting but incredible characteristic of being spread out over four
days. I would like to share some of my
reflections on the content of the commencement speeches and on certain unsung
(modest) heroes.

The day before Princeton’s
commencement ceremony, Class Day, is marked by student speeches, student awards
and recognition, and a keynote address given by a celebrity or honorary
guest. This year’s speaker was Bradley
Whitford, who is best known for his role in “The West Wing,” and who used his
role to address the graduates and their families and friends on politics and Hollywood.

While I appreciate Whitford’s disdain for
dishonesty and corruption in politics, and while I too would implore my fellow
graduates (and indeed all people) to use their talents and capacities in
honorable ways to better society and the world, I must admit that this positive
take-home message of Whitford’s speech was lost amidst his inappropriate
insults of other celebrity figures and his crude language and humor. I was amazed and appalled that at a
graduation ceremony gathering parents, grandparents, and young children,
Whitford would think it appropriate to use such words as “ejaculate” and
“pu--y.” Regardless of the broader
context Whitford may have thought would make up for using such inappropriate
language, I know of a large population of students and families who were
angered and disappointed by his lack of decency. Whitford was obviously aware of the ill
reception of his words by laughing awkwardly at himself and blaming his immodest
speech on those members of the audience who, for one reason or another, decided
to laugh or applaud at his comments.

Fortunately, Whitford’s disappointing presentation was
compensated by the humorous and thoughtful words of some other members of the Princeton community, among them Baccalaureate speaker
Professor John Fleming and 2007 Class President Jim Williamson. While there are many passages I could
highlight from each of their respective speeches, I will only draw attention to
one. Professor Fleming – one of the most
intelligent, witty, and loved professors at Princeton– observed that “one mark of the mature elite sensibility is the capability to
experience gratitude and the power to express it generously." He then expressed his hope that my fellow classmates and I are grateful
for our place of education, and even more so for those whose “support,
encouragement, and…sacrifice” made that education possible. In his own address, Williamson likewise
encouraged the class to recognize and thank those who had helped us reach our
goals. He then proceeded to proudly display
a large orange and black “Thanks Mom” sign to demonstrate that he already has
this duty covered.

Both Fleming and Williamson raise a good point. While thousands of family, friends, and loved
ones gathered at Princeton to celebrate the
achievements of the class of 2007, we graduates should turn around and
celebrate those who have been the wind beneath our wings, be they our parents,
teachers, or select friends. I know for
me personally, I owe my education and Princeton experience to my parents. I will never
know the degree to which they sacrificed to allow me the opportunity to study
at Princeton and the freedom to pursue my
interests while there.

In this blog, we often refer to modesty as it relates to
dress, speech, beliefs and sexuality. However, I think many of us would also be the first to admit that
modesty is a virtue that encompasses a whole demeanor and attitude. When I think of the many parents, who, out of
a selfless and humble love, have sacrificed for the good of their children
expecting little but their children’s happiness and well-being in return, I
cannot hesitate to call this modesty. So
thank you to all the family, friends, and especially parents who are exemplars
in modesty through the humble beauty of their love and the dignity of their
support and sacrifice.

Last month, we held an intercollegiate conference at Princeton University, “Making Love Last: Finding Meaning in Sex and Romantic Relationships.” Among the students there were representatives from the University of Virginia, Catholic University, Loyola University of Chicago, Penn State University, University of Pennsylvania, and Seton Hall University. High school seniors from four different schools were also present, in addition to adults who work with young people on issues of marriage and sexuality. Some attendees even flew in from Colorado, Texas, and Alabama.

Questionnaires were passed around at the end of the conference, and the participants indicated that Professor Tollefsen’s philosophy on chastity and integrity was “poignant” and “enlightening”; Patrick Fagan’s sociological data and powerpoint slides were clear and informative; Maggie Gallagher’s exposition of the health and financial benefits of marriage was “charismatic” and intriguing; and Professor Rhoad’s lecture was illuminating and quite humorous. Overall, I would definitely say the lectures were enjoyable, and the Q/A sessions provocative and helpful.

The keynote address that started off the conference was planned as a conversation between Princeton’s own Professor Robert P. George and Princeton alumna Christine Whelan. Due to a shoulder injury the day before the conference, Ms. Whelan was not able to participate, so at the last minute, Professor W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia and a post-doc member of the Princeton faculty generously agreed to join Professor George for the keynote conversation, which was moderated by Princeton alumnus and friend Ryan Anderson. The panel discussion, which followed a catered dinner, was a great kick-off to the conference, answering many of the most pertinent questions as to why issues of marriage, family, and sex are so important to consider in today’s culture.

In addition to the lectures, the other officers and I put on a “workshop” to coach the attending students on the more practical matters of starting an Anscombe-like group. We noted, in particular, the need to be clear and positive in the mission statement, inclusive in audience, and always civil in conversation and debate. We explained how important it has been to work with groups and individuals who do not hold our values, so as to encourage mutual understanding and respect.

One high school senior came up to me after the workshop to say how encouraged she was by my own presentation. During the Q/A, I had explained how I am more quiet by nature. I noted that while others enjoy the limelight, all the interviews and press I and the other officers received took quite a bit of courage and practice on my part. It was a worthy and rewarding challenge, however, and my experience leading Anscombe has increased my confidence and ability to articulate and defend my commitments. This high school girl said my words spoke directly to her own experience, and that she was deeply encouraged that if I could develop the skills to confidently defend my values, she could too. This was the highlight of the conference for me!

All in all, the conference participants praised the variety of the presentations, the food, and the free copies of “The Meaning of Marriage” which everyone received. And let's not leave out the commemorative mugs our speakers received as a token of Anscombe’s appreciation.

From both talking to the conference participants and reading their questionnaire comments, I would say that our conference was a success. It was also a testament to the thirst there is in today’s culture, especially on college campuses, to consider a sexual ethic that includes marriage and family, and explains why that is healthy, stable, and fulfilling.

January 25, 2007

Well, this past Saturday I finished my last final exam of
the semester! (Princeton has its finals AFTER the winter break.) Now it is time to buckle down and work on my thesis.

In addition to the thesis, however, the other Anscombe
Society officers and are planning something special.

In less than a month, the Princeton University Anscombe
Society will be hosting an intercollegiate conference titled: “Making Love
Last: Finding Meaning in Sex and Romantic Relations.” The conference will be held in memory of
Professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, who passed away early this month. A leader in the field of women’s studies and
a defender of sexual and familial ethics, the Anscombe officers had hoped she
could have been present among the conference’s speakers had she been in better
health. Rather, we will dedicate the
conference in her memory.

The conference was put together to meet the needs of college
students throughout the nation. Ever
since the founding of the Anscombe Society in February 2005, students from
other universities have been eager to start similar groups at their respective
campuses. The conference, therefore, is
aimed at both providing the intellectual background students need to defend
their commitments and to provide them with the more practical advise they need
to start such a group as this. As such,
the conference will be bringing in an all-star team of speakers to cover the
topics of marriage, family, sexuality, and chastity:

Princeton Professor Robert P. George and Princeton alumna Christine Whelan (author of the recent book Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women), keynote address.

Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, “The Case for Marriage”

Steven Rhoads, UVA professor of politics, “Why Taking Sex Differences Seriously Would Be Good for Men and Better for Women”

In addition to these talks, the schedule will include
workshop sessions on how to approach such issues on a college campus.

The conference will be held on Princeton University’s
campus, February 16-17, 2007. All
college students are welcome. Check out
our website for more details and to register. www.princeton.edu/~anscombe

This is not an event to be missed, so sign up soon to
reserve your spot!

December 13, 2006

It certainly has been a while! Just after my last blog, I traveled to Hong Kong to do some research for my senior thesis, which is on religion in China. It was a successful trip. Needless to say, however, I have been busy with lots of work since then, so please excuse my long absence!

On a recent trip to New York, I walked by the large Victoria's Secret store on 34th street, only a few blocks away from Penn Station. Above the store was a huge billboard, with women advertising this holiday season's line of lingerie. As I walked by, I could not help but notice that on the revolving glass doors leading into the store were life-size pictures of women in "santa" style lingerie, posing in an "I'm naughty, not nice" type of fashion. One picture was the back side of a woman wearing a thong.

As I walked by, I could not help but think how many millions of young children, boys and girls, must pass by that building every day. So many children are being brought up in a world where sexuality is exploited and sex commercialized, as if it is just another object to be advertised and sold to the consumer. Ironically, despite the store's name, Victoria's Secret uses advertisements that actually reveal the secret and remove the mystery of female sexuality -- and in a way that degrades and objectifies women rather than truly promoting their beauty. In my opinion, this not so subtle message needs to change, both for the sake of women and for children.

But with women's lingerie being the product Victoria's Secret sells, how might we suggest an alternative advertising technique? More specifically, is there a modest way to advertise underwear and lingerie? With modesty including not only physical presentation, but also attitude and behavior, is the problem more the sexy and provocative attitudes assumed by Victoria's Secret models, or is it the mere presentation of the lingerie itself?

October 25, 2006

Last month I wrote on what can be learned from the emphasis
traditional courtship places on the role of the father. Lately I've been thinking about the importance of the family.

When I asked a friend how he would define courtship, he
replied with a half-laugh, “chaperoned dating.” His definition, while over-simplified, does hint at a value embraced by
courtship – growing in friendship amidst others, especially among family. When I had first heard of a contemporary
couple who had courted, and had asked what that entailed, the answer I received
certainly did involve younger siblings “chaperoning” their older sister on her
first few dates with a young man (now her husband). This idea was novel to me, and certainly took
me aback at first.

After continued
conversation and reading on the subject, however, I have come to understand the
idea of “chaperoning.” It is not necessarily
a matter of not trusting the young man and young woman, but rather it is to
make sure their intentions are in the right place. If a young man is willing to take a girl out
even if he has to take young Sally along too for the first few dates, then
certainly he is not just playing around. He is serious, showing a genuine interest for the girl.

Chaperoning also plays an additional role –
one of protection. As long as the young
couple is accompanied by others, limiting their time alone together, they
protect the relationship from accelerating too quickly too fast, especially in
areas of physical affection. One need
not look too far to realize that in today’s culture, many relationships are
founded or focused on the physical. Those
outward manifestations of affection quickly become the measure for how well the
relationship is going and for how serious the relationship is. What courtship recognizes is that physical
affection should be neither the measure, nor foundation or focus of a
relationship. Rather, it is the depth
and growth of friendship between a man and woman that should be the basis of a
romantic relationship.

Now how does family factor into this whole picture? As I made clear in my last entry on
courtship, it is simply a fact that in today’s culture and society, a great
deal of relationships develop after a young man or woman has left home. In such a setting, chaperoned dating is
extremely impractical. What still can be
learned from this aspect of courtship, though, is the emphasis on building
relationships within social settings, especially within the home when possible.

Building a relationship within such settings
not only confirms the couple’s good intentions and protects them from
opportunities to get too intimate too fast, but is also allows them to get to
know each other fully and in situations similar to those they will face in
marriage. In other words, there is a
value in getting to know a person in different social situations. Not only does this provide an opportunity for
the couple to see if they are compatible in multiple social settings, but it
also allows them to grow in understanding one another’s dispositions. This is, of course, incredibly important if
one is to make one’s life with another in marriage. Growing in understanding and friendship,
especially in different environments, is crucial to the dating and courtship
process.

Family is perhaps the most important of these social
settings. For example, how a man treats
his mother is very often indicative of how he will treat his wife. The same is often true for a woman with her
father and husband. Furthermore, seeing
the family someone comes from also helps to understand a person and perhaps
what their expectations are for marriage and family. There is certainly some truth to the saying
that children grow up to become their parents, as it is inevitable that
children pick up certain qualities, dispositions, attitudes, etc. from those
who raised them. In effect, children
learn how to be husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, from how their own
parents raised them. Another reason why courtship (not accidentally) placed the young couple in the home environment.

Outside of a courtship model, can you think of other ways to nurture friendship and understanding in
romantic relationships today?